COVID-19 Summary: This is a habeas action brought by a group of inmates in the the Maine Department of Corrections, seeking release of inmates due to COVID-19. The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the case is now closed.
A group of vulnerable prisoners brought this lawsuit against the Maine Department of Corrections, alleging that the Department was not sufficiently protecting them against the threat of serious illness or death from the virus. Represented by the ACLU of Maine, they filed this petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on May 15, 2020. The petition was assigned to Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Department was refusing to use medical furlough to reduce the risk of infection for inmates. One caseworker had told an inmate that “there’s nobody being released because of medical conditions, so you can get that idea right out of your head.” In fact, instead of releasing prisoners in an effort to de-densify, as correctional institutions across the country had done, the Department had added “many new technical requirements” for medical furlough. The plaintiffs additionally alleged that the precautions the Department was taking to protect against outbreaks in its facilities were insufficient to protect prisoners, especially medically vulnerable prisoners, from contracting the virus.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of “all current and future inmates who, by reason of age or medical condition, [were] particularly vulnerable to injury or death if they were to contract COVID-19.” They proposed 3 subclasses:
- an Imminent Release Subclass, composed of inmates scheduled to be released within one year;
- a Minimum Security Subclass, composed of inmates who posed a low security risk and who were housed in minimum-security or community-security settings; and
- a Disabilities Subclass, composed of people who were medically vulnerable due to underlying medical conditions that qualified as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
They argued that the policy of keeping vulnerable prisoners in prison, when they could otherwise qualify for medical furlough or home confinement, was a violation of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; that the policy was a violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for members of the Disabilities Subclass; and that because the policy was unconstitutional and unlawful, the members of the class and subclasses qualified for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
They sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, an order of enlargement (an order requiring the Department to release prisoners on bail during the pendency of the habeas proceedings), and/or a writ of habeas corpus. They also sought a declaration that it was unconstitutional and unlawful for the Department to categorically deny medical furlough during the pandemic. They requested an order requiring the Department to identify all members of the class and subclasses within two days, to evaluate each class member’s eligibility for medical furlough, home confinement, or other accommodation, and to release enough prisoners “to ensure that all remaining persons are incarcerated...consistent with CDC guidance.”
On May 18, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The following day, the Department reported its first COVID diagnosis. On June 8, 2020, the court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. The court held, among other things, that "[g]iven the relatively low number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in MDOC facilities and what the Court expects will be a rapid resolution of the request for a preliminary injunction, the Court does not see the need for temporary injunctive relief at this time." 2020 WL 3052220.
The Department moved to dismiss the lawsuit on June 22, 2020. The plaintiffs later moved to convert their claim, originally brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241, to an action under §2254. The Court granted this motion on July 15. 2020 WL 4004795.
On August 14, Judge Woodcock dismissed the plaintiffs' habeas claims without prejudice, and dismissed the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. 2020 WL 4736462. Judge Woodcock found that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their state remedies as they were statutorily required to do before seeking habeas relief. Although there may have been some common issues of fact, Judge Woodcock determined that Maine state courts could determine whether or not to permit the plaintiffs consolidate those issues. As such, because the petition was dismissed, the case is now closed.
Gregory Marsh - 07/28/2020
Justin Hill - 10/17/2020
compress summary
